In Ransom v. Village of Cross Plains, No. 2015AP1556 (Apr. 28, 2016), the Village took a part of Ransom’s property, 703 square feet to be precise. The parties actually agreed on the amount of just compensation for the 703 square feet. But Ransom asserted that the Village also took a temporary easement after the case was initiated, and that he should be compensated for that as part of the eminent domain case.
The Village acknowledged that it might owe him compensation for taking the temporary easement, but argued that it shouldn’t be part of the eminent domain case. Ransom’s remedy, it argued, was to sue the Village for inverse condemnation.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed with the Village. The court rejected Ransom’s arguments that it was unfair and made little sense to force him to bring a separate inverse claim, when the Village knew at the outset that it would be taking the temporary easement in addition to the 703 square feet (a fact which the court assumed to be true). Yes, the Village could have (and should have) exercised eminent domain and taken the easement, but hey, it didn’t. The eminent domain statute requires valuation as of the date of the taking, and here, “that date … was several months before the Village can be said to have taken the temporary easement.” Slip op. at 5.
Yeah, “it might seem burdensome” for a property owner in this situation to be forced to bring an inverse condemnation case, “[b]ut there is nothing inherently unfair about the requirement.” Slip op. at 6.
Ransom v. Village of Cross Plains, No. 2015AP1556 (Wis. App. Apr. 28, 2016)